Sharada Gade’s work brings to the forefront the distinction between research on education and educational research. Borrowing from Elliott’s (1978) definition, she defines research on education as developing formal theory with definitive concepts and educational research as developing substantive theory of action with sensitising concepts. Both constructs begin and end with a theoretical objective, however as suggested by Gade, what defines educational research from research on education, is the practical and iterative approach of action leading to further action whilst simultaneously building and contributing to theory. Elliott’s definition is interesting but not unlike definitions put forward by others. For example, Hedegaard (2008) suggests that researchers who are engaged in educational research adopt two roles; active participant and investigator. She defines the duality of this role as the “doubleness of the researcher” and positions this definition within the theoretical constructs of CHAT (Hedegaard 2008, p. 205).

In both investigating and participating in a teacher-researcher collaboration Gade adopts an educational research approach whereby she combines perspectives from CHAT and Narrative Inquiry to both theorise and acquire an understanding of the teacher-researcher collaboration as it unfolds within the complexity of the real world setting. The adoption of such an approach is interesting in that it provides a way to focus simultaneously on the development of both theory and practice as it emerges, and as it evolves in the everyday context. As Gade defines and analyses the varying processes that both her and the teacher engage in and with, she provides an historical outline of the teacher-researcher collaboration. This outline maps the collaboration as it develops over time.

In this paper we offer an alternative reading of the interaction between teacher and researcher. We draw on the notion of convergence and argue that it is through convergence that collaboration comes into fruition. To do this we draw on the conceptual framework of the cultural interface (Nakata 2002).

The meeting of people

Human relationships rest in the interactions that take place between people; they are what emerges through and between human activity and communication, and in some instances can be defined as the “making of something in common” (Biesta 2010, p. 10). Gade highlights the centrality of relationship in teacher-researcher collaboration throughout her paper, by providing a chronology of process whereby a shared commonality has evolved over time. She argues that the forms of engagement or patterns of activity engaged in and throughout the collaboration have resulted in new patterns of activity and forms of work that can be defined as a case of expansive learning activity.

We suggest that when people come together they do so through different doors, or sometimes the same door in different ways. In doing so, they bring with them their histories, their experiences, their values, perceptions and ideals. They also bring their thoughts, beliefs and aspirations of, for and about the future. We suggest that some of these things will be shared through the process of coming together but also that others will be met with difference, and sometimes ‘opposition’ (Nakata 2002). We argue that it is this convergence (and divergence) that can facilitate, limit or/and control what might emerge as a result of coming together, including new patterns of work and the collaboration between people.

In the following section of this paper we re-examine the collaboration presented by Gade. In doing so, we hope to add to the insightful and adeptly presented argument that Gade has developed around the teacher-researcher collaboration. However, our focus lie in the convergence of teacher and researcher and the space that emerges through such meeting. We draw on Nakata’s (2002) conceptual lens of the cultural interface to assist in this analysis.

The cultural interface

The cultural interface is a different schema to work from in that it provides a way to investigate the meeting of people, not through a juxtaposition of ‘us and them’ or ‘you and I’ but rather through an interpretive framework of convergence (Nakata 2007b). It provides a way to “reconfigure the lived space of [individuals] as one which is constituted through a cultural interface” (Anderson 2009, p. 262) and embodied and shaped by, and within, the process of social interaction. Time is a central component of the interface in that it is examined not as a chronology or a linear construct, but rather a shifting infusion of past, present and future (Nakata 2007b). When used as a conceptual lens the cultural interface provides a way to explore the social space that is created when people come together, but more importantly the actions that take place, and that are shaped through this space. This includes the tensions and challenges, but also the opportunities and possibilities that might emerge through coming together (Nakata 2007b). In the following section of this paper we draw on the cultural interface to review the collaboration presented in Gade’s writings.

Collaboration

Nakata defines the interface as “…a space of many shifting and complex intersections between different people with different histories, experience, language, agendas, aspirations and responses” (Nakata 2007a, p. 199). This is demonstrated in the collaboration described by Gade in that her initial impetus for entering the classroom focused on observing classroom practice. As her experience in the classroom unfolded a space of shifting and complex intersections emerged that developed the initial impetus for entering the classroom in new and different ways (Nakata 2007b). Gade demonstrates these shifts and intersections in her writings on relational knowing where she proposes that she got to know her [the teacher] as a person and describes her experience as growing into Lotta’s teaching. Both occurrences move beyond the initial researcher-focus of observing classroom practice, representing Nakata’s notion of a shifting and complex intersection, shaped by and through the process of coming together.

The cultural interface as described by Nakata is a space of opportunities and possibilities but also a space of tension and contradiction (Nakata 2007a). Such tensions and contradictions are highlighted in Gades analysis of the collaboration and include issues around system and societal expectations and norms. When drawing on the lens of the cultural interface it is these tensions and contradictions that are examined in depth. This might include analysing what is said and what remains unsaid, what is silenced and what is heard, and also what might be omitted from or refused entry to the interface (Nakata 2002). In the collaboration presented by Gade our analysis centres round the context for collaboration (the school) and how this might have influenced or restrained the interactions at the interface. Particularly in relation to Gade and her identity as ‘researcher’, and particularly in relation to how this identity was maintained, shaped and changed through the context of the classroom. In the following section we explore these notions further.

Gade exemplifies the varied intersections that emerged through the coming together of researcher and practitioner by detailing the shared focus that came into fruition through the process of coming together. She suggests that the relationship with the practitioners’ students was close at hand and that it facilitated a process whereby the practitioner would eventually direct students to her for assistance with their mathematics learning. The lived space of ‘researcher as observer’ became reconstructed “as one…constituted through a cultural interface” (Anderson 2009, p. 262). Gade was no longer a researcher observing classroom practice; her role was redefined through the intersections she shared with the practitioner in the context of the classroom. Similarly, we suggest that the lived space of the teacher was also changed whereby she was no longer ‘a practitioner being observed’ but a teacher working alongside a colleague, developing a shared practice and constructing a variety of shared meanings. Once again, this is evident in Gade’s writings where she describes the process of working together as taking action as practitioners. A noteworthy aspect in this writing was that Gade no longer referred to herself as a researcher in this context but a practitioner who was working alongside a colleague. This indicates that Gade’s identity at the interface had in some ways been redefined through coming into contact with her colleague. It also identifies a possible tension that, if navigated differently, could have restrained future possibilities within the interface.

Gade appeared to embrace the identity that emerged through the interface. This action was shaped by what Gade brought to the space—although she came into the context as researcher, she was also a teacher of mathematics. The context of the classroom and the past experiences of Gade denoted that the lived space that came into fruition through the meeting of researcher and teacher was a familiar space to Gade. This familiarity meant that it was not met with resistance and it did not unfold as a tension; it was embraced by Gade as a lived reality that was not foreign or strange, but comfortable and familiar. This in turn shaped the trajectory of the interface including the collaboration that later emerged.

The context of the classroom both influenced and shaped the interface, and in turn how the collaboration came into fruition. Although Gade initially came into the classroom to observe the teachers practice, she quickly became part of this practice by working closely with students. This shifting intersection seemed to strengthen the relationship between researcher and teacher and facilitate and shape the collaboration that emerged. Gade’s knowledge of mathematics education was both valued and utilised in the classroom context. It was not something that was discussed or explored by Gade or the teacher but nevertheless it was a crucial component of the interface and became a core component of the collaboration that emerged. It was the unspoken element of the interface but one that was significant.

Evidence presented in Gade’s writings suggest that the teachers role was redefined also, particularly when she took the initiative of applying for project funding to explore communication for mathematics. Gade suggests that it was this action that reoriented [the] collaboration. We propose that it was a shifting intersection within the interface that contributed toward the development of the collaboration as it repositioned the teacher as researcher and exposed the dual identities that were afforded through the interface. These identities blurred the boundaries of ‘role’ and provided an opportunity for Gade and the practitioner to actively participate in the others work. This is indicative of Nakata’s notion of intersection whereby two worlds become entangled, resulting in a change in the world of individuals and in individual identity (Nakata 2007b). We suggest that it is through this change in the interface that the researcher-teacher collaboration emerged.

Mathematics

Like collaboration, mathematics is culturally defined, and produced and mediated, by individuals within and through different contexts (Burton 2012). It is a human construct that is embedded in sociocultural practice and how it is constructed, where it is constructed, and who is involved in the construction, all contribute to the mathematics that is practiced and produced (Barton 2012). Within this construction lies the agency of individuals; including their individual interactions with and within the construction of mathematics (Quintos 2008). Such agency contributes to both individual and social ways of doing and knowing mathematics in a specific context, which in turn shapes how mathematics education evolves. In the collaboration presented by Gade ‘mathematics teaching and learning’ was refined through the convergence of researcher and teacher, and mediated through the interface. It became a shared construct as teacher and researcher worked together to make it “something in common” (Biesta 2010, p. 10). When this ‘commonness’ was achieved the collaboration was established.

The interface that was created through the coming together of researcher and teacher was the surrogate for the dual focus that emerged within the classroom. The blurred role of teacher and researcher provided an impetus for deep level observation and analysis and in Gades words a semiotic practice that was embedded in the complexity of the real-world context; a practice that moved beyond ‘you’ and ‘I’ and into ‘us’. The result of this shared practice was the reconstruction of mathematics education in ways that were relevant and conducive to supporting and developing the agency of individual students as they too became embedded in the interface. Meaney and Troels (2013) explain the importance of such an approach by explaining that classrooms are “…not just physical settings, but include the valuing of knowledge, the typical distribution of power within relationships that interact around that knowledge and the sorts of interactions that are expected to occur between participants and with that knowledge” (p.170). As Gade and the teacher worked together with students, the knowledge of, with and around mathematics became a knowledge that was not only discussed and developed between teacher-researcher-and-student, it became a knowledge that was endorsed by the students’ parents. This became visible when a parent agreed to have Gade work closely with her son and then suggested that she too would encourage him at home.

The interface that was created when Gade and the teacher came into contact facilitated a space in which both researcher and practitioner could not only share expertise, but also develop new expertise and knowledge of and about mathematics teaching and learning. As Gade and the teacher shared information about students and worked together to formulate solutions to the challenges, a shift in intersections occurred. In this instance the shifting space centred round research. Gade highlights this shift in her analysis where she defines the work between researcher and teacher as action research. They were no longer taking action as practitioners teaching mathematics to students; they were researching in the field of mathematics education, engaging in action research and developing the foundations of the collaboration.

This shift from ‘practitioners’ to ‘researchers’ was a significant shift within the interface. It was the moment where the concept of ‘moving forward’ came into fruition and when teacher and researcher truly converged. It demonstrated the infusion of past, present and future, and the teacher and researcher moving together as one. Shared meanings and understandings had been both realised and established, and plans for working together were ready to be actioned. We suggest that it was at this moment that the teacher-researcher collaboration emerged through the interface.

Making meaning

Nakata defines the interface as “[t]he place where we live and learn, the place that conditions our lives, the place that shapes our futures and more to the point the place where we are active agents in our own lives—where we make decisions—our life world” (Nakata 2002, p. 5). Gade entered the classroom of the teacher with the goal of observing classroom practice. What emerged through her contact with the teacher (within the classroom) was a life world that extended beyond observation and into collaboration. This life world came into existence through the experiences that were afforded at the interface, including how these experiences were both received and negotiated. Similarly, the teacher entered into the meeting with an expectation that her classroom practice would be observed. This positioned her passively within the initial meeting of teacher and researcher, but was a position that was renegotiated through the action of inviting Gade to participate in the practice she was there to observe. This action repositioned the teacher on an equal platform with Gade and provided a foundation from which new opportunities and ways of working together arose.

Nakata (2007a) proposes the cultural interface as a way to examine different knowledge systems, sometimes opposite knowledge systems, in a non-oppositional way. In relation to the teacher-researcher collaboration presented by Gade it provided a way to examine what was created through the meeting of the knowledge systems of teacher and researcher. When examining how collaboration comes into fruition this is an important concept as it provides a way to identify the tensions that might contain or limit the collaboration but also the possibilities and opportunities that emerge. The collaboration presented by Gade was unique in this regard as Gade entered into the meeting with two knowledge systems (teacher and researcher). This dual knowledge facilitated the emergence of the collaboration and shaped the trajectory of the interface in a way that was conducive to teacher and researcher working together. This might not have been achieved in the same way if Gade had not been prepared to straddle both systems.

Collaboration can be broadly defined as working together toward a common goal (Heatley and Kruske 2011). By examining the coming together of people, key elements of the process of collaboration can be highlighted. This is important in that it not only contributes to knowledge around interprofessional collaboration but it polarises the complexities that arise in real-world contexts. In examining the initial meeting of Gade and the teacher, the processes involved in the formation of the collaboration were both exposed and analysed. This analysis highlighted critical moments and critical aspects of the formation of the collaboration that could be drawn upon to guide both practitioners and researchers in future work together; an important notion in a world that is growing in complexity.

Gade’s writings set the stage for further research, and methodological study around how collaboration and expansive learning might come into fruition. Gade has provided a solid foundation from which to build such work including a guiding frame in which theory and practice can be simultaneously studied and developed. We hope to have added to this foundation by building on Gade’s important contribution and further explicating the space between people that can facilitate or constrain collaboration.